Dismissed

Suraya Nawab Pathan and Another v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC15 Apr 2014PIL/52/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a PIL seeking a ban on an IPL-7 advertisement depicting a bedridden woman, alleging it offended morality under the Indecent Representation of Women Act. The Court found the petition devoid of substance as the advertisement did not violate the prescribed code.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of substance; no direction to ban telecast or appoint a regulator.

Suraya Nawab Pathan and Another Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pil 52.14.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2014

¶5

1] Suraya d/o. Nawab Pathan

¶6

2] Mangal d/o. Nivruttirao Pagade

¶7

Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Union of India and others.

¶10

Respondent/s

¶11

Mr. Amol S. Gandhi,advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, GP for the Respondent

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
 DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2014.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1]By the present petition, the petitioners are
praying for a writ, order or direction, thereby
putting a ban on the telecast of an advertisement for
the promotion of IPL-7 2014 being telecast on Sony Max
and Sony Six Channels. The petitioner has further
prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4
to appoint a committee or Sensor Board (like that of
Sensor Board for Films) to regulate and monitor the
advertisements prepared/shown on television.

¶15

pil 52.14.odt

¶16

{2}

¶17

2]According to the petitioners, the impugned
advertisement , depicts an old aged woman who is bed
ridden and in contemplation of death and when her son
comes, she points her finger at a photo frame of her
husband and informs the son that the person shown in
the photo frame is not his father but another man,
from amongst three, whose photographs are shown, but,
she is not able to point out who is the real father of
her son. At this juncture, when the son is in
distress mood, the official music of IPL-7 is played
in the background. Upon hearing the said music the
son asks her mother to decide as to who is his father
and till then he is going to watch the IPL-7 saying,
“Mera Bulaava Aya Hai”.

¶18

3]Accordingtothepetitioners,the
advertisement is offending one and lowers the dignity
of women. The petitioners contend that the alleged
advertisement amounts to indecent portrayal or
representation of women, within the meaning of Section
2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986.

¶19

4]Section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act, defines
Indecent representation of women”, which reads thus :-

¶20

“Indecent representation of women” means the
depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her
form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to
have effect of being indecent, or derogatory to or
denigrating women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or
injure the public morality or morals”. Admittedly, the

¶21

{3}

¶22

pil 52.14.odt

¶23

advertisement does not portray or depict a woman or
figure of a woman, her form or body or any part
thereof in such a way as to have effect of being
indecent or derogatory to or denigrating women. The
advertisement is also not likely to deprave, corrupt
or injure the public morality or morals. However, it
is contended that the advertisement has an effect of
injuring the public morality or morals.

¶24

5]On reading of the petition, the petitioner
has not produced the transcript of the advertisement.
As such, it is difficult to gather what are the spoken
words of the mother or her son.

¶25

6]The concept of morality undergo change with
the times. In the matter of “ Ajay Goswami v. Union
of India” (2007)1 SCC 143, while examining the scope
of Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation
of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, the Apex Court has
held that the commitment to freedom of expression
demands that it cannot be suppressed, unless the
situations created by it allowing the freedom are
pressing and the community interest is endangered.

¶26

7] The principles of contemporary social values and general attitude of ordinary reader and the principles of contemporary community standards and social values have been reiterated by the Apex Court, in “ S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal “ (2010)5 SCC 600.

¶27

8]The test which is required to be applied in
such matters is, “community standard test” in
preference to “Hicklin Test”, as postulated in “Regina

¶28

pil 52.14.odt

¶29

{4}

¶30

v. Hicklin” (1868 L.R. 2 Q.B.360)

¶31

9]Thepetitionerscontendthatthe
advertisement in question is against the objects
declared while enacting the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995. Referring to the statement of
objects and reasons, the petitioner has pointed out
the introductory paragraph under the statement of
objects and reasons, wherein it is mentioned that
there has been haphazard mushrooming of cable
television networks all over the country during the
last few years as a result of availability of signals
of foreign television networks via satellites. This
has been perceived as a “cultural invasion” in many
quarters since the programmes available on these
satellite channels are predominantly western and
totally alien to our culture and way of life. Since
there is no regulation of these cable television
networks, lot of undesirable programmes and
advertisements are becoming available to the viewers
without any kind of censorship.

¶32

10]Counsel for petitioners further points out
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which reads
thus :-

¶33

“No person shall transmit or re-transmit
through a cable service any advertisement unless such
advertisement is in conformity with the prescribed
advertisement code :

¶34

Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to the programmes of of foreign satellite

¶35

pil 52.14.odt

¶36

{5}

¶37

channels which can be received without the use of any
specialized gadgets or decoder.”

¶38

11]It is not brought to our notice that the
impugned advertisement violates Rule 7, of the Cable
Television Networks Rules, 1994.

¶39

12]Since the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate that the advertisement in question is
violative of any of the provisions of the
Advertisement Code, the challenge raised by the
petitioners to the advertisement being telecast by the
respondent channel networks, cannot be considered.
The petitioners have failed to make out a case for
causing interference in the PIL.

¶40

13]The petition is devoid of any substance and
same stands dismissed.

¶41

[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶42

grt/-

Suraya Nawab Pathan and Another v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraya Nawab Pathan and Another v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Santoshrao Lad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Villagers of Pahine , Kojuli and Bhilmal Gaon Vs the Collector , Nashik and Ors.

Gajanan Damodar Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatna, Muktainagar, through Prakash Gambhir Mahajan and Ors. Vs Union of India through Secretary, Agricultural Department, and Ors.

Shri. Jaising Babasaheb Yewale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Human Rights Security Council, through Controller, Shaybaz Aziz Shaikh Vs Talegaon Dabhade Nagarparishad and Ors.

Prakash Sunderdas Talreja and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kisan Tatyaba Gunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Deoram Chaudhari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Haridas Amruta Tayde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramilabai Pralhadrao Pattewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Mainoddin Maheboobsab Qureshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waman Icchu Dhodya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others